Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/07/2005 11:58:52 AM:
> On Jul 19, 2005, at 10:24 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> > what is the proper use of Jira for defects that occur in multiple
> > branches/releases? There are at least 2 issues fixed in head that
> > need to be backported
>
> I
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-762?page=all ]
Chris Cardona updated GERONIMO-762:
---
Attachment: GeronimoConsoleJars.zip
Inside the file attachment - GeronimoConsoleJars.zip are the ff. jar files
needed to build Geronimo console:
1. pl
On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote, On 7/20/2005 7:04 AM:
I'm against making coarser grained gbeans for this. In fact, I
would prefer to see gbeans for servlets, servlet mappings, and
filters as well.
I like the idea of a coarser grained GBean for
Aaron,
Are you in the process of changing the installer in HEAD? I tried
compiling the installer in HEAD and I got some errors.
John
C:\geronimo\modules\assembly\target\installer>compile geronimo-izpack.xml
-o geronimo-installer.jar
.:: IzPack - Version 3.7.2 (build 2005.04.22) ::.
< compi
David Jencks wrote, On 7/20/2005 7:04 AM:
I'm against making coarser grained gbeans for this. In fact, I would
prefer to see gbeans for servlets, servlet mappings, and filters as well.
I like the idea of a coarser grained GBean for simpler configurations.
Are the reasons for your preference
Hi,
Here are some thoughts on how to achieve a better transparency for both
Geronimo 'users' and Geronimo 'developers':
1. Create a Wiki page 'future plans' (or similar) where a rough release
time frame, new features, deliverables, compatibility with earlier
versions etc. are listed (like:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-678?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-678:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
1.0-M5
Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
For whatever reason this does not seem to be a problem any more
> Bad SO
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-714?page=all ]
David Jencks reassigned GERONIMO-714:
-
Assign To: David Jencks
> WSDL ports with a http:address need to be disregarded
> -
>
>
On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:51 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Decide what we will continue to support from our 1.0 release. IMO
this is only the plan xml schemas and possibly some interfaces
exposed by some gbeans, primarily gbeans "exposed" by jsr-77
I'd add "well defined gbean names such as the Deplo
On Jul 19, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I have the web console working as four separate modules under
geronimo/sandbox.
This really takes 4 modules? If so maybe we should target it for
geronimo/console/* instead of geronimo/applications/*.
BTW what are the 4 modules?
-dain
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-484?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-484:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Description:
Hello,
I have just run a test that tests Geronimo's ability to redeploy .war
files. The results don't look so good,
I have the web console working as four separate modules under
geronimo/sandbox. You have to build them one at a time and manually copy
stuff into the assembly repository and manually deploy, but that will all
be resolved when we migrate it out of the sandbox.
There are two bloc
On Jul 19, 2005, at 10:24 AM, David Jencks wrote:
what is the proper use of Jira for defects that occur in multiple
branches/releases? There are at least 2 issues fixed in head that
need to be backported
If the fix is back ported, I would say you just set the fixed number
to M4. Once M4
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/07/2005 10:57:34 PM:
>
> On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > It appears we have already been building defacto releases of external
> > libraries, e.g. the cglib library in our repo:
> > http://cvs.apache.org/repos
Thanks for pushing on this issue.
I think it is really important that we put out a 1.0 release very soon.
I think it needs to work, and be tck compliant, but I don't think it
has to be all that much more usable than what we have now. I'd rather
get feedback and users than perfection.
The f
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-714?page=comments#action_12316192
]
Stefan Schmidt commented on GERONIMO-714:
-
If you have a look here:
http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/excerpt/progdotnetws_2/index1.html?page=4
Basically, they
ejb ws deployment system does not use gbean builder references
--
Key: GERONIMO-782
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-782
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: deployment
Versions:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-337?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-337:
--
Component: application client
(was: OpenEJB)
Description:
Currently remote ejb refs in an app client enc are restricted to only
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-714?page=comments#action_12316190
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-714:
---
These may be "REST" style web services and we should figure out if we can
support them.
> WSDL ports with a http:address nee
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-684?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-684:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
1.0-M5
Resolution: Duplicate
Assign To: David Jencks
I should pay more attention to bug reports. I ran
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-736?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-736:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
adc has asked that this not be put in M4. Hope this doesn't annoy any users
who try to use a description e
Sorry for the spam, but please remove me from this list. I cannot seem to
get off.
Thank you
-rjm
- Original Message -
From: "David Jencks (JIRA)"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: [jira] Closed: (GERONIMO-750) Configuration failing can result in
NPE
[ htt
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-750?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-750:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
don't put in M4
> Configuration failing can result in NPE
> ---
>
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-155?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-155:
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
The runtime system does no xml manipulation, so this proposal is really moving
against the direction geronimo is heading. If yo
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-552?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-552:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Environment:
> Put the gbeandatas in a deployment context in a queriable container and use
> queries to resolve links
>
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-552?page=comments#action_12316183
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-552:
---
the handling of resource gbeans could be improved. With the last patch "dummy"
gbeans are put into the deployment context ju
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-780?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-780:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
fixed in
modules/openejb-builder/src/java/org/openejb/deployment/MdbBuilder.java
M
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-552?page=comments#action_12316181
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-552:
---
Done for all resource related gbeans:
Sending
modules/connector-builder/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/connector/deploym
David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/07/2005 03:24:46 AM:
> what is the proper use of Jira for defects that occur in multiple
> branches/releases? There are at least 2 issues fixed in head that need
> to be backported
I found an answer at
http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-7186?deco
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-781?page=all ]
Jeff Genender closed GERONIMO-781:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
Sending
tomcat-builder/src/test/org/apache/geronimo/tomcat/deployment/TomcatModuleBuilderTest.java
Don't forget to update the tomcat module and build that before running
the module builder test. I had to make a change in tomcat.
Aaron Mulder (JIRA) wrote:
TomcatModuleBuilderTest busted
--
Key: GERONIMO-781
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/bro
David Jencks wrote:
I discovered and (I think) fixed some errors in the switcher. As a
result my enthusiasm for including it in m4 is rather weak. I'm finding
fixing things in 2 places somewhat unpleasant.
Let me know...I can help.
Also, WRT the switcher, I think it is usual not to labe
I discovered and (I think) fixed some errors in the switcher. As a
result my enthusiasm for including it in m4 is rather weak. I'm
finding fixing things in 2 places somewhat unpleasant.
Also, WRT the switcher, I think it is usual not to label xml fragments
as xml files but call them somethin
I gotta go home...can't wait for a responseI'll update JIRA for M5
as for what it was opened for.
But are we...or are we not including the Jetty/Tomcat switch in M4? I
understood this was one of the requirements for M4.
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
This is now fixed...but noticed its M5.
This is now fixed...but noticed its M5. I thought we agreed to the
Jetty/Tomcat switcher in M4. before I update JIRA can we get some
resolution on this?
Thanks,
Jeff
Aaron Mulder (JIRA) wrote:
TomcatModuleBuilderTest busted
--
Key: GERONIMO-781
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-769?page=comments#action_12316179
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-769:
---
Fixed (?) in M5:
Sending
modules/connector/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/connector/outbound/ManagedConnectionFactoryWra
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-762?page=comments#action_12316177
]
Geir Magnusson Jr commented on GERONIMO-762:
The note in the COPYRIGHT file is fine - we can either move that to our top
level, or just include that text in wha
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-762?page=comments#action_12316178
]
Geir Magnusson Jr commented on GERONIMO-762:
And for the NOTICE, just add that to our existing, or start a new one.
> Improve manageability by adding a web base
That may be the right answer for #1 ... it all depends upon our
intention to support Portal
applications or not. For now I think we need to move forward with
the "static" Portal
configuration we already have in the console with possibly some
enhancements to make
it a bit more dynamic (withi
On Jul 19, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David Jencks wrote:
I'm against making coarser grained gbeans for this. In fact, I would
prefer to see gbeans for servlets, servlet mappings, and filters as
well.
To clarify, I had in mind one master GBean that yo
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-762?page=comments#action_12316176
]
Aaron Mulder commented on GERONIMO-762:
---
Commons-FileUpload "1.1-dev" does not appear to be on any Maven repositories,
though I was able to receive it the other day.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-762?page=comments#action_12316175
]
Aaron Mulder commented on GERONIMO-762:
---
Pluto does not appear to be on any Maven repositories. I was able to receive
it the other day (perhaps from the Gluecode rep
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David Jencks wrote:
> I'm against making coarser grained gbeans for this. In fact, I would
> prefer to see gbeans for servlets, servlet mappings, and filters as
> well.
To clarify, I had in mind one master GBean that you configure in
your plan, and it would create c
I'm against making coarser grained gbeans for this. In fact, I would
prefer to see gbeans for servlets, servlet mappings, and filters as
well.
If this is really a problem (i.e. it is something users will actually
want to configure rather than always using our setup) IMO the way to
fix it is
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-546?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-546:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed for M5
Sending
modules/j2ee-schema/src/j2ee_1_4schema/j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
Transmi
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-779?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-779:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed in M5, basically the same code as M4
Sending
modules/axis-builder/src/
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I was just poking around the Tomcat GBeans a little trying to get
the broken test to work, and there seems to be a moderately complex
structure there.
Yes it follows the Tomcat structure of the server.xml and context.xml.
I'm not sure to what extent this is truly dynami
I was just poking around the Tomcat GBeans a little trying to get
the broken test to work, and there seems to be a moderately complex
structure there. I'm not sure to what extent this is truly dynamic. I
mean, will you really want to fully customize the container, engine,
hosts, conne
TomcatModuleBuilderTest busted
--
Key: GERONIMO-781
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-781
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: Tomcat
Versions: 1.0-M5
Reporter: Aaron Mulder
Assigned to: Jeff Genender
mdb builder needs jms message listener as default
-
Key: GERONIMO-780
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-780
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: OpenEJB
Versions: 1.0-M4, 1.0-M5
Repor
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-762?page=comments#action_12316171
]
Aaron Mulder commented on GERONIMO-762:
---
Many of the source files included in the console have an Apache copyright and
license statement in a header comment. Yet the
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-779?page=comments#action_12316170
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-779:
---
hopefully the end of the M4 work. My standalone test app now works.
Sending
modules/axis-builder/src/java/org/apache/
Maybe the real answer to #1 is to actually integrate Pluto into
Geronimo -- you know, so if you deploy a web app with portlet deployment
descriptors then a PortletDeployer GBean "magically" wires it up and makes
it available to Pluto, and then some other admin web site lets you arrange
Regarding #1 below ... I think there are probably some good reasons to
keep this split into 2 or maybe even more web applications.
As you mention, the "framework" appears to hold the necessary components
for the console framework itself. Since this may be replaced
at some point in the future by
On Jul 19, 2005, at 7:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe after M4 is out we should look at creating some further
milestone versions in JIRA and start assigning some of the tasks
that were in the Roadmap that Geir discussed to them, so we can get
a good visual on the project's plans.
At
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-779?page=comments#action_12316164
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-779:
---
Additional work in M4:
Sending
modules/axis-builder/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/axis/builder/SchemaInfoBuilder.java
T
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-779?page=comments#action_12316158
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-779:
---
Fixed in M4
Sending
modules/axis-builder/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/axis/builder/SchemaInfoBuilder.java
Sending
SchemaInfoBuilder class cannot be loaded due to xmlbeans problems
-
Key: GERONIMO-779
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-779
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: webservices
Ve
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-768?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-768:
-
fixed in M4 branch
Sending
modules/axis-builder/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/axis/builder/HeavyweightOperationDescBuilder.java
Transmitting file da
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-645?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-645:
-
Resolution: Fixed
fixed in m4 branch
Sending
modules/jetty/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/jetty/JettyPOJOWebServiceHolder.java
Sending
mo
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-761?page=comments#action_12316152
]
Aaron Mulder commented on GERONIMO-761:
---
Could the plugin problem be caused by plugins generated by the M4 branch that
are unavailable during a clean build of HEAD or
GERONIMO-763 too.
Jeff
David Jencks wrote:
what is the proper use of Jira for defects that occur in multiple
branches/releases? There are at least 2 issues fixed in head that need
to be backported
GERONIMO-645
GERONIMO-768
Also, I suggest that anyone changing a dependency version in M4 sho
what is the proper use of Jira for defects that occur in multiple
branches/releases? There are at least 2 issues fixed in head that need
to be backported
GERONIMO-645
GERONIMO-768
Also, I suggest that anyone changing a dependency version in M4 should
do the same in head at the same time. vi
On Jul 19, 2005, at 7:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can everyone please check that any work they are planning on doing
for the M4 release is listed when you view the open issues for the
1.0-M4 version, so we don't have any last minute surprises.
I pulled down the list of outstanding i
An alternative here would be using commonJ. Although 237 will be the
eventual J2EE standard for this it is only just getting started and will
almost certainly depend on the JSR 166 APIs (which use generics) that are
integrated into J2SE 5. 237 is unlikely to be substantially different to
common
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-772?page=all ]
David Blevins reassigned GERONIMO-772:
--
Assign To: David Blevins
> Move OpenEJB from jelly velocity tags SNAPSHOT to version 1.0
> ---
no, svn is still being worked on.
geir
On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
There was a warning earlier about an outage while they migrate the
server to a different filesystem or something. I guess it's not
done yet.
Aaron
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Sachin Patel wrote:
I'm ge
There was a warning earlier about an outage while they migrate the
server to a different filesystem or something. I guess it's not done yet.
Aaron
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Sachin Patel wrote:
> I'm getting the following error when calling checkout? Anyone aware of
> the issue?
>
> C:\>svn
I'm getting the following error when calling checkout? Anyone aware of
the issue?
C:\>svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk geronimo
svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk'
svn: PROPFIND of '/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk': could not connect to
server (http
Can everyone please check that any work
they are planning on doing for the M4 release is listed when you view the
open issues for the 1.0-M4 version, so we don't have any last minute surprises.
Can you also please check whether you
are assigned any issues for M4 and if you are unable to work on t
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-728?page=comments#action_12316086
]
John Sisson commented on GERONIMO-728:
--
Created issue on Jetty project
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1240821&group_id=7322&atid=107322
> Je
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-773?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-773:
-
Summary: Improve Error messages in the Jetty deployment
TemporaryPlanAdapter (was: Errors during assembly from JettyModuleBuilder and
TemporaryPlanAda
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-773?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-773:
-
Description:
Fixed (HEAD rev 219657, M4 rev 219658). Previously, the error was not clear
that the old format was actually used:
20:45:19,847 ERROR [Jetty
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-773?page=all ]
John Sisson resolved GERONIMO-773:
--
Resolution: Fixed
> Improve Error messages in the Jetty deployment TemporaryPlanAdapter
> ---
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-778?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-778:
-
Attachment: geronimo-xdoclet.zip
> Geronimo XDoclet 1.2.2 module contribution
> --
>
> Key: GERONIMO-778
>
Geronimo XDoclet 1.2.2 module contribution
--
Key: GERONIMO-778
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-778
Project: Geronimo
Type: New Feature
Reporter: John Sisson
Priority: Minor
Attachments: geronimo-xdo
76 matches
Mail list logo
